Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (73747)	2/2/2000 10:02:00 PM
From: MSB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Very interesting information taken from the Cato Institute: However, I don't tend to agree with the following strictly from personal observation (highlighted in bold): "Unemployment Rate. When Reagan took office in 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. In the recession of 1981-82, that rate peaked at 9.7 percent, but it fell continuously for the next seven years. When Reagan left office, the unemployment rate was 5.5 percent. This reduction in joblessness was a clear triumph of the Reagan program. Figure 3 shows that in the pre-Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended upward; in the Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended downward; and in the post-Reagan years, the unemployment rate has fluctuated up and down but today remains virtually unchanged from the 1989 rate." It would seem to me the overall employment rate is much lower than 5.5% unless there are a high percentage of people in our country who don't want to work or don't have to. I know there has to be a rather low unemployment rate when fast-food restaurants are offering signing bonuses just to get workers. Also, there seems to be an unprecidented amount of advertising on radio these days looking for workers with varying talents just to fill job openings. This suggests to me that American workers can be more selective about where they may choose to be employed even taking into consideration their education and current skill level. If one can read and write, one can damn near find a job anywhere with only a minimal amount of effort. (I should probably note that the state in which I live has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. One county in particular has an unemployment rate of around 2.5%. About 10 years ago the rate was around 4%).

To: Neocon who wrote (73747)	2/3/2000 9:26:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Proof positive that Reaganomics and the republican congressional takeover are responsible for this robust economy. Thanks for posting.

To: Neocon who wrote (73747)	2/3/2000 5:10:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Except that the growth spurt began in the '80s. Oops..... And why shouldn't it? The point I'm trying to make is that the growth spurt was the consequence of a change in attitude on the part of the American business community, not the political community. Political change follows changes in the attitudes of the community. Our leaders are more often followers. I'm not talking about the move from "The Reagan/Bush years" to "the Clinton years". I'm talking about the point at which a business cycle changed, complacency went out of fashion, and innovation began again. I really don't think these things start with government policy.